Sarah B's Story

[Lori Dee ✅]

While attending Hypnotherapy College, our class was tasked with finding a new "disorder" that was not currently listed in the DSM. Our professor said that the best entries would be submitted for inclusion. (He lied.) It was just an exercise to get us to read the DSM and become familiar with it. It was also to show us that the DSM continues to grow exponentially as academics try in vain to classify every little behavior.

My submission was aureaphilic disorder.

The love of gold, with such severity that it disrupts daily life, causes sleeplessness and the inability to hold down a decent job. Classified under the Obsessive Compulsive and related disorders.

Also known as Gold Fever.

[davina61]

Some thing I see on Ozzie gold hunters on TV, they do not look for it to make money as such.

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Dances With Trees

You said:

Thanks, Sarah! Now, I have a much better understanding of what GD actually is and I am so glad you seem to have never experienced it. For me, in the words of TanyaG, scripting so overwhelmed my GV I wasn't aware of any dysphoria until I was in my 60's, and it has always felt manageable with minimal therapy. Though I would love to proceed further with my transition, I don't feel compelled to do so.

You are more than welcome, even I had to get my head around what the DSM V was saying about Gender Dysphoria.  What you mentioned about TanyaG's scripting never applied to my life, for several reasons.  One, there was very little to no information so I was not influenced.  Two, the term GD was not around when I changed my life around and only began to appear when DSM V was being produced and discussed here on Susan's around 2010.  Three, if you read the next post on this issue, I hope what I say gives further insight into why I never suffered from GD, let alone incongruence.

I assume when you said GV you meant GD?

As for "I would love to proceed further with my transition.  I don't feel compelled to do so."  you can look at it, in this way.  In a sense I never felt compelled to do so either.  I just did what I did at the time without thinking about it and before I knew it, it was all over for me.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator
@Dances With Trees

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Everyone

Addendum
This addendum does not revisit the diagnostic analysis set out in the rebuttal.  Its purpose is to clarify matters of language and interpretation that can be easily misread when compressed into summary form.  In particular, it distinguishes between how things were experienced at the time and how they may appear in hindsight, and between conscious framing and lived understanding.

Incongruence
The question of incongruence must be addressed as I did not specifically address it in the rebuttal and is analytically mentioned in regards to me rather than in a narrative form.

In DSM V, incongruence refers to a marked and persistent internal conflict between experienced gender and assigned sex that is distressing, psychologically destabilising and clinically meaningful.  It is defined by friction.  It is experienced as something wrong, intrusive, or intolerable that interferes with psychological or social functioning and demands resolution.

That condition was not present in my life.

At no stage did I experience a persistent internal conflict about my sex.  There was no ongoing discomfort that required relief.  There was no sense of being trapped in the wrong body.  There was no psychological pressure that escalated over time.  There was no impairment in social, occupational, or personal functioning attributable to sexed experience.

What existed instead was recognition without distress.

Recognition alone is not incongruence.  Awareness that something fits is not the same thing as suffering because something does not.  Moments such as thinking "this feels right" when dressed or tucked indicate alignment, not conflict.  They were not accompanied by discomfort, urgency, dissatisfaction, or distress.  They did not motivate action, dominate attention, or impair functioning.

Incongruence also requires persistence.  A condition defined by internal conflict does not disappear for extended periods.  Long stretches of ordinary functioning without preoccupation, distress, or escalation are incompatible with the presence of marked incongruence.  The absence of symptoms is itself evidence.

It is also essential to distinguish how my life was experienced at the time from how it can feel in hindsight.  In hindsight, thinking about aspects of my past body can evoke discomfort or aversion.  That reaction exists now.  It did not exist then.  Retrospective aversion does not constitute incongruence as it was experienced at the time and cannot be projected backwards to create a diagnosis after the fact.

Because there was no persistent conflict, no distress, no impairment and no psychological destabilisation, the condition DSM describes as incongruence did not exist for me.  Without incongruence, the diagnostic framework for Gender Dysphoria does not activate.

Threshold 2 Clarification: Clinically Significant Distress or Impairment
Threshold 2 requires clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  This section clarifies two points that can be misinterpreted when summarised.

First, the description of me sitting in my car before surgery and reflecting seriously on what I was about to do risks overstating that moment.  It was not serious in the sense of distress, crisis, or doubt.  It was simply a brief awareness of an upcoming medical procedure.  It did not involve fear, panic, or reconsideration of my life.

Second, I did not consider going back to my previous life while sitting in the car immediately before surgery.

Thoughts sometimes later described as de-transition occurred earlier and were not connected to surgery.  They arose midway through the approximately two year period after February 1989, at a time when I had already developed breasts.  These thoughts surfaced briefly because other girls were discussing such issues.  When the thought occurred, I considered what that would mean and immediately rejected it.  The entire process lasted no more than a minute.  It did not recur in any sustained way.

This was not hesitation born of distress.  It was momentary consideration triggered by external discussion.  It did not impair functioning, alter behaviour, or generate anxiety or doubt.

Clinically significant distress is persistent, intrusive and disruptive.  A fleeting thought that is immediately dismissed and does not recur does not meet that standard.  Reflection and responsibility are not pathology.  They are features of informed consent.

I worked, lived, socialised and functioned throughout this period.  There was no impairment.  Again, Threshold 2 was not met.

Further Reflection
It is important to be clear about language.  I was not analysing what I was doing and I did not know why I did the things I did.  I simply did them.  There was no internal narrative, no framework, and no attempt to understand myself in abstract terms.

When something did not fit, I dealt with it in a practical way.  If I had hair on my face, I got rid of it.  Women do not have hair on their face.  That was the extent of my reasoning.  There was no questioning, no interpretation, and no wider meaning attached to it.

From early childhood through adulthood, I did not think about who or what I was in any reflective or conceptual way.  I did not ask questions about identity.  I did not analyse my behaviour or search for meaning in it.  I simply did things as they arose and moved on.

I was also an innately private person.  I did not talk about myself, explain myself, or announce anything to others.  This was not avoidance or repression.  It was simply how I lived.  I did not need to say anything in order to live my life and nothing in my day to day experience required explanation.

This privacy extended even to my own understanding.  I did not consciously think "I am female" for many years.  There was no need to say it in words.  My life functioned without explanation.
Language arrived much later, around 2010, when information became abundant.  Language followed experience, not the other way around.

From early childhood there were isolated instances such as looking for female clothing, wearing some of my mother's clothes, wanting to wear a skirt or clothes that the girl who sat near me wore.  I preferred not to play boys sports or play with boys toys except Lego and Meccano and looking forward to playing with a girl who visited near where I lived in England until I was about ten.  These instances were not distressing and did not persist.  They were part of recognition, not conflict.

From early adolescence until my mid teens there was virtually nothing. There was no escalation and no fixation.  Later, from my late teens into my twenties, there was occasional wearing of underwear.  I did not experience this as a sense that being female fit me better.  I simply wanted to be female.  That wanting became stronger and stronger later in my twenties.  It did not arise from distress and it was not accompanied by internal conflict.  It strengthened as desire, not as discomfort.

Two Christmas holidays living as Sarah were not undertaken to relieve suffering.  They were experiences of ease.  I realised I could not get enough of that life because it felt right, not because my existing life felt unbearable.  When my uncle said go and live as a female, it was an epiphany not a rescue.

Between eighteen and thirty I built a career.  Not because I was delaying something, but because that was what I was doing at the time.  In hindsight it provided independence and stability.  At the time it was simply life unfolding.

There were moments that now appear symbolic.  I remember thinking that I did not want people to take my photograph.  In hindsight this can look like erasure.  At the time it felt more like authorship.  My life was not finished forming and I did not want it fixed prematurely.  I cannot remember if this was related to me wanting to be a girl.  The past I once sought to minimise is now clearly part of who I am.  That does not negate the earlier instinct.  It completes it.

When I changed my life around in February 1989, I did not experience it as a dramatic turning point.  I did not experience myself as transitioning because the word was not around at the time.  I changed my name, corrected documents and removed facial hair, things many women do.  I had surgery to correct a physical condition so that I could function in society as any other woman does.  I was not becoming something new.  I was aligning my body with how my life already functioned.

Even after changing my life, I did not question what I was doing at the time.  There was no ongoing self interrogation and no internal debate.  Looking back now, the absence of questioning during that period is striking.  At the time, it felt entirely normal.  I am examining it now not because it was unresolved then, but because language, knowledge and understanding arrived much later.

In hindsight it can be tempting to call this luck.  A more accurate description is that there were no hurdles in my way.  I moved forward without resistance.  Not because I foresaw the outcome and not because I was compelled, but because my life followed a line that was internally consistent.

I did not analyse my life into coherence.  I lived my life and coherence followed.

I could keep analyzing this until the cows come home, but as Forrest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that."

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

[Dances With Trees]

I assume when you said GV you meant GD?

No. I meant GV. Here's what I remember: I'm four years old, I'm wearing one of my older sister's dresses. I think I'm a girl. My father punished my sister far more severely for letting me wear her dress than he punished me. I did not want to get her in trouble again, so I stopped wearing dresses. Stopped thinking I was a girl. I experienced occasional lapses such as writing a short story when I was in the 4th grade from a girl's point of view. My father burned the story and had me sit at the table and transcribe a story he told to me. My teacher liked my father's story but didn't believe I wrote it. What 9-yr-old uses the word 'copse'? I started cross-dressing in my twenties but considered it a fetish. Then I started dreaming I was a woman in my mid-60s. So, until I was in my sixties, I did not 'feel' dysphoric. But I suppose I always was. Thanks, Sarah.

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Everyone

I came across a thread titled "How do you know that you are ready for SRS?" and I wanted to respond, even though my experience does not really line up with the premise of the question.

So without further ado

The honest answer for me is this.  "I never knew" in the way the question assumes.  In truth, I never really thought about it at all.

When I first arrived in Sydney at age thirty, I saw a counsellor at a drop in centre called Tiresias House.  I was totally naïve at the time.  I vaguely mentioned something about the final stage or heading towards it, but I had no real understanding of surgery at all.  I was winging the discussion because I knew absolutely nothing about surgery or anything else about what I was going to do.

In May 1990 I received my first surgery letter from the second psychiatrist.  I only saw him three times.  He was very sure of what I was doing to do, why?  I was living and working and functioning well and as I would put it I had my head screwed on properly.  I understood that if I went ahead with surgery there was no going back.  That understanding and the responsibility was all mine.

After that I went back to my first psychiatrist with a single thought in my mind.  "I need the second surgery letter." I did briefly think what I would do if he did not give it to me and my answer was simple.  I would move on and find someone who would.  I deliberately chose him because other girls said he was tough.  In my own superficial way that meant to me that I was not mucking around.  When I asked he said yes.

I then asked if I could have the surgery straight away.  He said no.  At the time I did not really understand why.  Only many years later did I realise that I had in fact completed the two years of real life experience required by the standards of care.  I did not know I was doing that.  I was just living my life.

Between that point and surgery in February 1991 I was busy living and working.  I did not sit around thinking about surgery.  I never framed it as a big psychological event.  It felt more like "another chore that had to be completed" rather than something to dwell on.  Occasionally the approaching date crossed my mind more as it got closer but it was not something I thought about in any sustained way.

The day before surgery I remember a brief thought outside the hospital about what I was going to do.  I then went inside.  The next day after receiving the epidural they asked me if I could get on the surgery table.  I said yes and did so without hesitation.  In hindsight if there was ever a moment one could say I was ready that was it.  I could not get on the operating table fast enough.  If anything there was an impression of a smile on my face as if to say sure no problem.

So when people ask how you know you are ready my answer is that I did not experience readiness as a psychological milestone or a period of self examination.  I did not analyse myself into it.  I understood the consequences.  I knew there was no going back and I accepted that responsibility.  Beyond that I simply moved forward.

Looking back it feels like "much ado about nothing." Not because it was insignificant but because it did not occupy my mind in the way the question assumes.  I was not driven by distress.  I was not compelled.  I just did what needed to be done and my life carried on.

If this sounds familiar, it is because the last few topics are related. I am addressing the same underlying issue from different directions.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

[davina61]

Yes I was ready when the universe aligned for me, never any doubt and very happy now. Just an old dear doing what she wants to do happy in my own skin and my own company. Now if I could just lose that 40lbs!

[Northern Star Girl ✅]

        @Sarah B
Dear Sarah:
    I hope that you have a wonderful Birthday on February 7th
      ❤️
HUGS, Danielle [Northern Star Girl]

          🔗 [Link: imgbb.com]

[davina61]

A day late , Ozzies live in the future!!! Happy birthday XXXX.

[ChrissyRyan]

Hey Sarah!


Happy Valentine's Day!



Chrissy

[Dances With Trees]

Happy Valentine's Day, Sarah!

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Everyone

The following post is an issue that keeps cropping up from time to time and is in response to the news article I posted in the thread called Trans civil servants may be forced to 'out themselves' under new guidelines.  I have expanded my thoughts on what was mentioned in that article here.
The headline claims that civil servants may be forced to "out themselves" under the new guidance.  That immediately raises the most obvious question.  How?

If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate and a replacement birth certificate, has been living in that sex for many years and joins an organisation in the ordinary way, how would the employer know anything different?

There are clear exceptions.  The employer may already hold historical records.  The person may have changed while already employed.  Their history may already have been disclosed.  It may also be apparent because they do not pass particularly well.

Outside those circumstances, however, what exactly forces the person to reveal anything?

Even in those circumstances the individual may still reveal nothing.  An employer may possess historical information, but that does not necessarily mean the employee is required to discuss it.  Employers also have their own legal and professional obligations regarding the privacy and confidentiality of personal information, which limits what can properly be disclosed to others.

In ordinary life people do not introduce themselves by announcing their sex or gender.  A man does not normally say, "I am male" and a woman does not normally say, "I am female." They simply live their lives and other people accept them as they present themselves.

Why should anyone with a different personal history be expected to behave differently?

If the employer has no historical documentation, no prior knowledge and no obvious reason to question the person's sex, then the claim that the employee is being forced to out themselves does not necessarily follow.

The claim that the person is being forced to "out themselves" only begins to make sense if they are expected to disclose their history or identify themselves with the transgender label. If they simply live their life without volunteering labels or personal history, there is nothing to "out".

Part of the problem lies in treating "transgender" as though it is an identity that everyone with a particular history must accept.  It is not.  It is a label.  Some people choose to use it.  Others do not.  No one should be compelled to adopt a label simply because another person believes it describes them.

I have never referred to myself as transgender.  I never have and I never will.  That word is not part of my vocabulary when describing myself.  It was not a label in common use when I changed my life around.  It is a label that other people may choose to use.  It is not one that I have ever accepted as applying to me.

I fully recognise the dichotomy in saying this while being a member of Susan's.  Susan's is generally regarded as a transgender community and I am a genuine member of it.  At the same time I reject that label completely and utterly when it is applied to me.  That is the dichotomy.

My membership is genuine and my rejection of the label is equally genuine.  One does not cancel out the other.  Shared experience does not require shared identity and membership of a community does not require every member to accept the same label.

The practical answer to this issue of revealing oneself is simple:

• Do not announce a label that you do not use.
• Do not volunteer your private history when no one has asked for it and no one has a legitimate need to know.
• Keep your mouth shut about your private history and live your life in the same way that everyone else does.
• Unless there is a genuine obligation to disclose relevant information, say nothing.  Even then think twice carefully about what must be revealed.

There is no reason to make your private history anyone else's business unless you want them to know.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

[Northern Star Girl ✅]

@Sarah B
You posted an amazing summary of how I personally handle my own transition and identity. 

I make no general and initial announcements when I introduce myself to my clients and people that I meet.  "hello there, nice to meet you, my name is Danielle" .  .  . Then it is up to them to accept me at face value. . . A woman, a person, and no other explanation is offered . . . and if they ask more pressing questions I defer answering questions regarding my personal life.

Thank you for sharing here on the Forum.
HUGS, Danielle

[ChrissyRyan]

Hi Everyone

The following post is an issue that keeps cropping up from time to time and is in response to the news article I posted in the thread called Trans civil servants may be forced to 'out themselves' under new guidelines.  I have expanded my thoughts on what was mentioned in that article here.
The headline claims that civil servants may be forced to "out themselves" under the new guidance.  That immediately raises the most obvious question.  How?

If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate and a replacement birth certificate, has been living in that sex for many years and joins an organisation in the ordinary way, how would the employer know anything different?

There are clear exceptions.  The employer may already hold historical records.  The person may have changed while already employed.  Their history may already have been disclosed.  It may also be apparent because they do not pass particularly well.

Outside those circumstances, however, what exactly forces the person to reveal anything?

Even in those circumstances the individual may still reveal nothing.  An employer may possess historical information, but that does not necessarily mean the employee is required to discuss it.  Employers also have their own legal and professional obligations regarding the privacy and confidentiality of personal information, which limits what can properly be disclosed to others.

In ordinary life people do not introduce themselves by announcing their sex or gender.  A man does not normally say, "I am male" and a woman does not normally say, "I am female." They simply live their lives and other people accept them as they present themselves.

Why should anyone with a different personal history be expected to behave differently?

If the employer has no historical documentation, no prior knowledge and no obvious reason to question the person's sex, then the claim that the employee is being forced to out themselves does not necessarily follow.

The claim that the person is being forced to "out themselves" only begins to make sense if they are expected to disclose their history or identify themselves with the transgender label. If they simply live their life without volunteering labels or personal history, there is nothing to "out".

Part of the problem lies in treating "transgender" as though it is an identity that everyone with a particular history must accept.  It is not.  It is a label.  Some people choose to use it.  Others do not.  No one should be compelled to adopt a label simply because another person believes it describes them.

I have never referred to myself as transgender.  I never have and I never will.  That word is not part of my vocabulary when describing myself.  It was not a label in common use when I changed my life around.  It is a label that other people may choose to use.  It is not one that I have ever accepted as applying to me.

I fully recognise the dichotomy in saying this while being a member of Susan's.  Susan's is generally regarded as a transgender community and I am a genuine member of it.  At the same time I reject that label completely and utterly when it is applied to me.  That is the dichotomy.

My membership is genuine and my rejection of the label is equally genuine.  One does not cancel out the other.  Shared experience does not require shared identity and membership of a community does not require every member to accept the same label.

The practical answer to this issue of revealing oneself is simple:

• Do not announce a label that you do not use.
• Do not volunteer your private history when no one has asked for it and no one has a legitimate need to know.
• Keep your mouth shut about your private history and live your life in the same way that everyone else does.
• Unless there is a genuine obligation to disclose relevant information, say nothing.  Even then think twice carefully about what must be revealed.

There is no reason to make your private history anyone else's business unless you want them to know.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

Sarah,

You radiate good sense.  You said this:  "There is no reason to make your private history anyone else's business unless you want them to know.


There may be good reasons to make an exception that one is a MTF (or FTM) for medical reasons at times to some medical personnel.  So in these situations, you may decide that you want them to know.

[ChrissyRyan]

I am more often introduced than for me to introduce myself, at least, it seems so.

I make no announcement that I am a MTF transsexual, transgender, trans lesbian and so on.

I am Chrissy or Christine and that is the way I am introduced.  If I choose to disclose in any way my transition or status then I might later but not when just meeting someone. I would like to be accepted as me, female, and by my abilities and actions, by any person first.

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Danielle and Chrissy

Thank you both for your thoughtful replies to my post.

You have both articulated very clearly the central principle I was alluding to in my post above.  We should be accepted as the people we are now without feeling obliged to announce labels or disclose private parts of our history when meeting others.

Danielle, your approach of introducing yourself simply as Danielle and allowing others to accept you at face value is exactly the point.  Chrissy, your wish to be accepted first as Chrissy or Christine, as female, for your abilities and for your actions expresses the same principle equally well.

Some people choose to reveal their history to advance the rights of transgender people and to challenge discrimination.  I respect and admire those who do.  My own preference has always been to live quietly and simply as myself while helping behind the scenes in ways that I believe make a positive difference.

There may, of course, be occasions when relevant medical information needs to be disclosed to appropriate medical professionals.  That is a practical decision based upon need rather than a general obligation to explain oneself to everyone.

In my own case, I would think twice before revealing my medical past to any doctor.  That is not to say that I have never done so but I would only disclose it when I believed it was genuinely relevant and necessary.

Given the nature of the current political and social climate, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom and the growing efforts by some people in Australia to promote similar policies here, keeping quiet about private history is often the wisest course of action.

There is no need to volunteer information that others have no legitimate reason to know.  We can simply live our lives, allow people to know us for who we are and disclose personal information only when we decide that it is necessary or appropriate.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator
@Northern Star Girl @ChrissyRyan

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Everyone

In my travels and musings.  I have heard the following story crop up again and again.  The following is somewhat paraphrased to give you an idea of what I'm going to talk about.  This is also related to a posting made in "The right to be an ordinary transgender man".

A question that comes up in the community is why some people get so angry when someone chooses to go stealth.  If a trans person has reached a point where they pass well and no longer wants to openly disclose that they are trans why should that be seen as a problem?

Some people who decide to go stealth simply ask those who already know to keep that information private and not out them to other people.  Yet sometimes that choice is met with accusations of being transphobic or of somehow siding against the trans community.

So without further ado here are my thoughts:
___________________________________
For many people the decision to live stealth is not about shame.  It can be about safety especially with the current political climate and how unpredictable people can be.  It can also be about not wanting the trans label to become the main thing people see or associate with them.

Being trans can be part of who someone is without defining their entire identity.  There is much more to a person than that one part of their life.  So why does choosing to keep it private make some people so angry?

I really don't know why some people get mad or pissed off when someone decides they want to go "stealth".  There are probably many reasons and I doubt the same explanation applies to everyone.  It could be jealousy or resentment.  Maybe some people feel that those of us with similar experiences should stick together.  Others might be very open about their own past and find it hard to understand why somebody else would rather keep theirs private.

Some may see being trans as such an important part of their own identity that they assume it must be the same for everyone else.  From that point of view somebody choosing to live stealth might look to them as though they are still hiding or closeted in some way.  Others may have picked up the idea that not telling people you are trans is somehow deceptive even when that information has nothing to do with the relationship involved.

There is also the practical reality that not everyone has the option of living stealth even if they would like to.  Some people are readily recognised as trans because of their appearance, voice or other characteristics and no amount of privacy can change the fact that strangers may immediately make that assumption.  For them being visibly trans may not be a choice in the same way it is for somebody who can move through life without being questioned.

I can imagine that difference might sometimes create frustration or resentment.  One person may be able to decide whether anyone ever knows about their past while another person may never be given that choice at all.  That does not excuse hostility or attempts to out somebody but it may help explain why the subject of stealth can carry such strong emotions for some people.

Some may also have had bad experiences with stealth people who looked down on those who were open or who distanced themselves from other trans people out of fear of being discovered.  That can colour how they interpret somebody else's decision even when that person has done nothing of the sort.  Others may simply never have knowingly met someone who is comfortably stealth and don't really know how to understand it.  Their ideas about stealth may come more from what they have heard people say about it than from knowing someone who actually lives that way.

And yes, some people may simply have difficulty respecting another person's privacy.  Whatever the reason, somebody choosing to keep their past private does not automatically mean "I don't want to be like you people" even though that may be how somebody else interprets it.

Sometimes there can also be a kind of group mentality involved.  It can be a little like a group of people who have all travelled the same difficult road becoming uncomfortable when one person chooses a different path.  Instead of accepting that another route works better for that person they may see the decision to leave the common path as a rejection of everyone who stayed on it.  That does not mean the person taking the different path thinks they are better than anyone else.  They may simply be doing what works for their own life.

Having said that here is a little context from me because I've lived this way for a very long time.

I changed my life around in 1989 and I've lived my life as Sarah ever since.  I've always been a quiet and private person.  Before 1989 nobody knew about my thoughts and feelings except my uncle and aunt.  When I changed my life around I left my family and friends without telling them what I was going to do.

Even today I don't tell people about my past and I even think twice about telling a doctor.  It isn't because I'm ashamed of anything.  I simply consider my past to be private and I decide who actually needs to know about it.

My family eventually found out through my uncle and luckily for me they accepted me for who I am.  What that experience showed me was how easily private information can travel even when nobody involved intends any harm.

In my case my uncle knew then my mum knew then his children knew and eventually other members of the family found out through Chinese whispers.  Some family members then told their partners outside the family.  Luckily everyone involved has been quiet and supportive but that isn't really the point.

Someone might honestly mean it when they say "I won't tell anyone" but then mention it to their partner or somebody they trust.  That person might mention it to somebody else.  Before long people you never intended to tell can know something about you that you cannot make them forget.

This is also why I think anyone who knows something this personal about you has a responsibility to respect your privacy.  People who want to out you or force you out are not your friends. Period.  A friend does not take such a personal decision out of your hands.

There is another side to this that should not be overlooked: you have a responsibility to look after your own safety.  If keeping the trans label private is part of how you protect yourself then that is how it is.  Nobody else has to live with the possible consequences of disclosure in quite the same way you do.

That brings me back to the question about whether you should go "stealth".  Ultimately that decision belongs to you and you alone.  I don't tell people about my past because doing so has never been necessary for me to live my life.  Keeping it private has caused me no problems either directly or indirectly.  For me, I live in a binary world and I simply live my life as Sarah.

There is also an important distinction for me personally.  Yes, I changed my life around.  Yes, I have always been private.  My security matters and I was fortunate enough to pass from the beginning.  But I don't really think of myself in terms such as "stealth" or "trans this" and "trans that".  I am simply me and I am female.

I'm not acting female, pretending to be a female or putting on some kind of performance for other people.  I'm just living my life as myself.  That is really the point.  If I am female then why would I go around deliberately identifying myself as something other than female?

Doing that would feel almost like walking around with the word "trans" branded across my forehead.  Women and girls don't normally go through life announcing or explaining their womanhood to everyone they meet.  They simply live their lives and that is exactly what I do.

My past is part of how I got here but it isn't how I define myself in everyday life.  I don't wake up in the morning thinking of myself as a trans woman who is acting female or trying to pass as one.  I wake up and get on with my life as a woman because that is what I am.

So when people call that "stealth" I understand what they mean but from my point of view I'm not hiding behind an act or pretending to be something I'm not.  I'm simply living as who I am.

Did I mention I'm a flaming female?  No wonder I'm "stealth".  Go figure. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with being stealth.  I am stealth and many other people are too.  Most of us are simply getting on with our lives.  At the same time I have a great deal of respect for people who choose to be open and proud.  Their visibility can be important and valuable.  I don't see these as opposing choices.  Both ways of living are valid and people should be free to decide which one is right for them.

For me keeping something private isn't the same as being ashamed of it.  I don't tell people about my past because it's personal and unless there's a good reason for someone to know I don't see why I should tell them.  That doesn't mean I'm rejecting anyone or ashamed of who I am.  I simply prefer to keep that part of my life private.

I also don't agree with the "you're either with us or against us" attitude.  I just don't see it that way.  You can still support people without telling everyone about your own past or making it part of who you are publicly.  You can be open about it, keep it private or be somewhere in between.  That's your choice.

I never was involved with the community when I changed my life around.  I didn't need their help or advice at the time and I still do not today.  Yet I sit quietly behind the scenes (online) and help people in my own way when I can.  You can have something in common with a community and even contribute to it without needing to publicly identify yourself as part of it.

There is also one very practical reason I've always been careful about telling people.  For me telling someone about my past is basically a one-way door.

If I don't tell someone today I still have the choice to tell them next week, next year or ten years from now.  Not likely.  I generally let sleeping dogs lie.  Once I've told them though that choice is gone forever.  I cannot take the information back and I cannot decide later that I would rather they didn't know.  That is why I've always believed that the fewer people I tell the fewer opportunities there are for consequences or ramifications that I never asked for.  Especially given the climate in some countries today.

Again whether you decide to go "stealth" or be completely open about your past is ultimately your decision.  Other people are entitled to make a different decision for themselves but they aren't entitled to make decisions for you.  I've lived this way since 1989 and I've had no problems with it.  It works for me and somebody else may choose completely differently.  If that works for them that's fine too.

Don't let peer pressure from either direction make such a personal decision for you.  It's your life and your past so ultimately you decide who gets to know.

So "no telling means no outing".  I think I heard that somewhere before. 
___________________________________
I realize the irony I have just written something very similar not long ago but, you will have to excuse me if I keep on harping on similar themes.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

[Devlyn ✅]

Do you find that a lot of people oppose the decision to be stealth, or is it just an occasional individual. I have seen the occasional argument, but not any sort of overwhelming opposition one way or the other.

[Sarah B ✅]

Hi Devlyn

Thank you for your reply and questions.

I wouldn't say there is overwhelming opposition.  It just seems to crop up from time to time.

The thing is, I don't think any of us really know the numbers.  People who are stealth, in the woodwork, in the closet or whatever you want to call it, generally don't announce themselves.

That's rather the point.

There could be plenty of people quietly getting on with their lives and we'd never know about them.  And I'm one of them.

So I wouldn't try to put a number on it.  I just know the attitude exists because every so often somebody describes exactly that sort of reaction.

That some people don't like others going stealth

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator
@Devlyn

[Devlyn ✅]

But is it any more common than people who don't like others being out? I think the key word in both directions is "some"?